Habitat Selection by Prairie Dogs in a Disturbed Landscape at the Edge of Their Geographic Range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although habitat attributes of black‐tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus ) colonies have been described for central and northern portions of the species' geographic range, little is known about these associations at the southern edge of this species' distribution. Because high‐quality habitats are expected to be scarcer at the edge of the species' geographic range, different patterns of habitat selection might emerge in these populations. We analyzed habitat selection by black‐tailed prairie dogs in a human‐disturbed mosaic of desert grasslands and shrublands in northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. We contrasted 151 used and 133 unused habitat units producing 11 case‐control logistic regression models to explain site occupancy by prairie dogs with different combinations of environmental variables. Prairie dogs from Chihuahua occupy sites similar in most respects to sites in more northern regions, although these prairie dogs appear to be more tolerant of increased shrub density and reduced herbage cover. We found that site occupancy was best modeled by positive effects of soil moisture level, cover of forbs, cover of unpalatable vegetation, cover of bare ground, and amount of prairie‐dog colony area within 1 km and by the inverse of altitude, shrub density, herbage height, and amount of hostile habitat within 1 km. The 2 most significant variables were herbage height and shrub density, which might reflect the prominent role that visibility plays in habitat selection by prairie dogs. In contrast, we found weak evidence that human features have significant impacts on site occupancy by prairie dogs. Our results support the prediction that environmental conditions of sites used by prairie dogs in edge regions partially differ from those observed in more northern latitudes. We suggest that reserve managers focus conservation efforts on areas with short vegetation, low density of shrubs, and high herbage cover, conditions that could be promoted by controlled burns, herbage mowing, and mechanical removal of shrubs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".